Lars von Trier will not let go of this whole Nazi thing
By James Brady RyanSeptember 7th, 2011, 1:00 pmComments (15)
Ugh, Lars. Please just stick to making alternately terrifying and captivating films, because this weird Nazi game you're playing is just not going to do. You may remember that von Trier was kicked out of the most recent Cannes Film Festival for his comments about sympathizing with Hitler, and the director himself certainly does, because he won't shut up about it, and he's only digging himself deeper:
There was a point to this whole thing. I think history shows that we are all Nazis somewhere, and there are a lot of things that can be suddenly set free, and the mechanics behind this setting-free is something we really should really investigate, and the way we do not investigate it is to make it a taboo to talk about it.
Good gravy, give me a break, Lars von Trier. Oh wow, the abhorrent injustices carried out by the Nazi regime have antecedents in history? Sometimes events are so terrible and upsetting that we avoid analyzing their multifaceted components for years? Welcome to freshman-year history class.
Do you know what the "point" was, Lars? It was not to get people to reexamine the way they interact with tragic historical circumstances. It was to get attention, which you've now received, so let's stop this little game of make-believe because, straight up, it's embarrassing. Let's just hope Melancholia is fucking brilliant and give this empty provocateur shtick a rest.
Commentarium (15 Comments)
There was a time when Hitler was supported and brought to power. Even after he began abusing it many supported him and his beliefs. Examining how that side of human nature could ever become so twisted and large to cause the Holocaust may well be a worthy study. Making things taboo is almost never the way to deal with them. We scorn those who wouldn't talk about sex openly, and if you get past the perceived idea of 'Hitler had a point' you could see that this guy has a point in talking about it.
Well said.
Seconded. The original article is a tad too shrill in its condemnation. There's no harm in taking our darker instincts and really putting them to the microscope unless we're too afraid to face them.
Personally, I think Von Trier's main motive here is to demonstrate how people of supposdely enlightened societies can still quite easily slip into this kind of thinking, and that today's major powers might be closer to it today than they think. The labeling of things is (most of the time) different, of course, but the mechanism of propaganda sadly remains as efficient as ever.
Then again, he could be drastically wrong. Hate movements exist everywhere, but people are communicating today all across the world in ways humankind's never experienced before. In any case, it seems only prudent to watch and wait.
That all said, I do think we would do better to listen and see where he's going with this before we all explode in righteous socially-ordained indignation. If digging deeper -- even though it's painful -- means we can root this out, then I'm all for.
I hate pretty much every single one of his movies, but I sincerely and truly do not think Lars Von Trier is a Nazi sympathizer.
Point of clarification: not trying to set up any kind of straw man by claiming he was portrayed here as a sympathizer (which he manifestly was not). Pure revision fail on my part. What I meant was: I don't think he's doing this for the attention.
I may or may not be a little jet lagged.
I agree with RJ and G. I think Lars's problem was that he framed it horribly because you have to be pretty delicate when you bring up Hitler, which he in no way knows how to do. And, the first incident is basically him speaking before he thought the idea through, and I think the reason he didn't really explain his idea well after was because of a bit of a language barrier. There is definitely some interest in examining the culture of hate, power and entitlement that Hitler created, not because it was a good thing, but because it shows us something about human nature, something dark.
Whatever, James Brady Ryan. Even though Von Trier makes totally sadistic movies i kinda hate, traumitizing icelandic pixie women along the way, and is probably annoying on a personality level, it is EXACTLY this aspect of him, the one that says- "let's explore the way we all have the potential to behave like the nazis, isn't this fascinating" that we appreciate in him and in tons of other self-centered auteur types who make good/valauble provocative art. I'm certainly not too sophisticated for his schtick and i am skeptical of you, that you feign to be beyond it. Freshman History probably encompasses some pretty heavy/eternally interesting stuff.
Not buying it. His films are often uncomfortable and thought provoking in ways I don't always like, and I recognize the value in that. This wasn't one of his films -- this was a stupid thing he said that he clearly knew was inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory. Now he's trying to re-frame the incident as some sort of history lesson, and frankly I find that ludicrous.
I'm with you JBR.
I don't really agree with this article at all. And when was that italicized comment made, anyhow? I read the actual transcript from Cannes, and what he said (of course) got taken completely out of context by the media. As usual. Obviously, it was a big "foot in the mouth" moment for him...apparently he fucks up on a regular basis at press conferences. Whatever. But his point is extremely valid. We do ALL have a Hitler inside of us somewhere and it should be examined. Everything that isn't brought to light does become more powerful and ends up coming up in twisted ways. His movies are excellent, thought provoking and disturbing. He addresses elements of the human psyche that few other film makers dare to or are capable of. Is he weird and unusual? Um...YEAH! I think he fucked up ...of course he shouldn't have said that in the audience he wasin...and everyone jumped all over him about it. But the reasons for his saying what he did say do have roots in something more. It WOULD be nice if everyone let it go. But I doubt that will happen. I have a tough time believing that anyone who interviews him isn't asking the "Cannes" question. I'm sure it gets brought up all the time. And if the media is tired of his Nazi schtick, then just stopping writing about it already!
This article reminds me of something that one of my undergrads would say with great passion and limited thought in order to impress the dumb, but pretty girl, in the back row.
Anyone who thinks Hitler and the rise of Nazism as not been examined yet needs to start catching up on some reading.
And by all means that means it shouldn't be investigated by anyone else, or that people with different perspectives, ideas, or thoughts on it shouldn't investigate it for themselves.
I'm just saying there is nothing taboo about it. Talking about how much you and Hitler are alike however, could get you in hot water.
Initial comments were said in ironic play-jest (a term I seem to have just tried to coin).
A follow-up comes from being pushed by journalists to justify or distance himself with those comments.
After your 50th 'I was joking' comment, it's inevitable you might try and spin a more interesting line out of accidentally having a dry joke bomb in front of known-wit-of-our-time Kirsten Dunst and a room full of press...
I think Michael Haneke investigated what LVT said here with The White Ribbon.